Maskell v. Ross

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING #5 Report and Recommendations in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint #1 is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 26, 2024. (tmc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION ADAM MASKELL v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 1:24-cv-1005 CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE QUINCY ROSS DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 5. After screening Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff Adam Maskell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant Quincy Ross be dismissed with prejudice because Defendant Ross is entitled to judicial immunity. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 6. However, Plaintiff offers no coherent argument as to why Judge Bryant’s application of judicial immunity to Defendant Ross is incorrect. Plaintiff’s scattered arguments are singularly directed at the alleged actions of a “Judge Puryear,” who is not named as a defendant in this matter. Thus, the Court does not consider Plaintiff’s objection sufficiently specific to require a de novo review of Judge Bryant’s R&R. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation instead of a review for plain error). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE because Defendant Ross is entitled to judicial immunity for all of Plaintiff’s claims. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 26th day of March, 2024. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?